ReviewPerioperative medicine (London, England)2026
Rethinking ejection fraction for anesthesiologists: a narrative review.
Review in Perioperative medicine (London, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- HFpEF in perioperative medicine.Perioperative medicine (London, England) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) is one of the most frequently cited cardiac parameters in perioperative risk assessment and is often used as a surrogate marker of global cardiac stability. However, EF was validated primarily in chronic cardiovascular disease and long-term heart failure management, raising important questions about its suitability as a dominant marker of short-term perioperative risk. EF does not capture key determinants of perioperative vulnerability, including diastolic function, ventricular compliance, right ventricular function, venous congestion, or contractile reserve. Contemporary clinical data suggest that only severely reduced EF (< 30%) is consistently associated with markedly increased perioperative risk, whereas mildly to moderately reduced EF in clinically stable patients often carries less prognostic significance than preserved EF in the presence of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), congestion, or right ventricular dysfunction. Common perioperative scenarios such as HFpEF, distributive shock, hypovolemia, venous congestion, and chronic compensated heart failure illustrate that EF may substantially underestimate or overestimate true hemodynamic vulnerability depending on the physiological context. In contrast, functional capacity, volume status, and clinical stability emerge as more robust determinants of short-term perioperative risk. Advanced echocardiographic parameters, including diastolic indices, global longitudinal strain (GLS), and focused assessment of right ventricular function, together with biomarkers provide a more physiologically coherent risk profile. The uncritical use of EF as a primary perioperative risk marker is not supported by current evidence. For anesthesiologists, EF should be interpreted as one component within a multidimensional, physiology-guided assessment that integrates focused perioperative ultrasound, clinical history, and targeted biomarkers to more accurately characterize perioperative cardiovascular risk.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.